What About Paul? (1)

For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. Romans 7:14 NASB

Flesh – Yesterday we looked at some words from John that appear to be gnostic at first blush. We found that John’s Hebraic orientation must be considered in the exegesis of his statements. But now we come to Paul. My goodness, a statement like this one just reeks of gnostic flavor, doesn’t it? The “flesh” is horrible and filled with sin. It holds us prisoners. It must be eradicated. Even if God’s torah is good, it is powerless to remove me from the bonds of my bodily desires. What can be done?

We need to look carefully at Paul’s choice of terms. First, there’s sarkinos (translated here as “of flesh”). It’s really an adjective, not the noun of a prepositional phrase, so we should read it as “I am fleshly.” Of course, that’s not good English, so the translators modify it. The root is sárx. In older usage, it is the equivalent of the Hebrew bāśār, meaning the flesh part of living creatures, i.e., muscles and tissue, etc. By the time of Plato, sárx meant the whole body. Of course, Platonic thought, and later gnosticism, recognized the decay of death. This meant that sárx was the corruptible part of human beings while nous, the mind, or spirit (psyche), was incorruptible. What survived death was not a resurrected body but rather an eternal mind, reunited with the divine. Gnosticism and some Greek philosophies concluded that “sárx, as the source of uncontrolled sensuality and immoderate gluttony, supposedly makes the freedom of the soul impossible.”^[1]

But Paul is not a Greek philosopher. He is a Jewish rabbi and his concepts flow from rabbinic thought. Therefore, we should notice how the word sárx is used in the LXX.

The LXX does not connect sárx with sensuality, relates it to circumcision, never uses it for the flesh of sacrifice, and distinguishes the spheres of spirit and flesh (Num. 16:22), although not equating this cosmic dualism with the ethical dualism of Creator and creature, as tends to be the case at times in Judaism.^[2]

Furthermore, we find that the Qumran community expresses a Jewish view of the first century.

Flesh is sometimes neutral, but it also denotes human creatureliness. This is bound up with sinfulness and ignorance, but it does not itself stand in contrast to spirit; instead it is the battleground of conflict between the spirit of evil and the Holy Spirit. Hence flesh does not belong in principle to the ungodly sphere, nor is it the prison of the soul.^[3]

Schweizer provides a very useful summary of the differences between Greek and Hebrew thinking. Notice that Hebrew does not embrace the ontological dualism of the Greeks even though it recognizes a theological distinction.

1. In Greek thought the concern is the anthropological one of the relation between the different component parts of humanity. Humanity is understood in terms of its nature, i.e., the parts and their conflict, controlling center, distinction, and interrelationship.
2. In the OT the concern is the theological one of the relation of humanity to God. Humanity is understood in terms of its creatureliness, its response to God. The only dualism is that of Creator and creature or obedience and disobedience.
3. In Hellenism humanity belongs to the earthly sphere by destiny rather than by decision, is tied to it during earthly life, and seeks to rise above it through ecstasy and secret formulas.^[4]

Where does Paul fit? Of course, his use of sárx is connected to the Hebraic/rabbinic view. He does see a gap between God and the flesh, but it is not a gap that came about because of creation. It is a gap that occurred because men sin. Men are a part of God’s creation, but they are not condemned because they are embodied. They are condemned because of the actions they take. The body is not a prison of inevitable corruption. It is the arena of the battle, a battle which can be won for the sake of God. In opposition to Greek thought, “subjection to sárx is not fate but guilt.”[5] So when Paul writes that we are sarx, sold under sin, he is not saying that sin is the inevitable consequence of having a body. He is saying that you and I made choices and those choices created patterns and those patterns created habits and attitudes, and now, in that process, we have become slaves to our own desires. We didn’t have to be, but this is what happened. Now, with God’s grace and the power of the Spirit, things can change.

Tomorrow we’ll look at pipráskō, Paul choice of verb for the phrase “sold under sin.” Something very Hebraic is happening here too.

Topical Index: sárx, flesh, bāśār, sin, body, corruption, Romans 7:14

^[1] E. Schweizer, sarx, in Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (1001). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, Vol. VII, pp. 98-105.

^[2] Ibid.

^[3] R. Meyer, op. cit.

^[4] E. Schweizer, sarx, TDNT.

[5] Ibid.